Scherer v. Antiquers Aerodrome, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Scherer v. Antiquers Aerodrome, Inc.

546 So. 2d 103, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1616, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3788, 1989 WL 73812

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 7, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1588

StatusPublished

This text of 546 So. 2d 103 (Scherer v. Antiquers Aerodrome, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scherer v. Antiquers Aerodrome, Inc., 546 So. 2d 103, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1616, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3788, 1989 WL 73812 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the non-final order of the trial court, enforcing a judgment by directing appellants to disassemble and remove a “pole bam hangar” they had constructed on their property in derogation of restrictive covenants applicable to appellants’ property. The restrictive covenant provided in pertinent part, “There shall not exist on any lot at any time more than one residence and one hangar....” The trial court correctly found that appellants’ proposed structure, which consisted of an already existing hangar connected to the new “pole bam hangar” by a breezeway, did not comply with the one hangar provision, and that appellee was correct in seeking to enjoin the construction of such a structure.

We wish to point out, however, that nothing in the trial court’s judgment or this opinion precludes appellants from starting over with a new plan, upon submission to and approval by the board of directors, whereby they might modify the existing hangar in conformity with the one hangar rule.

DOWNEY, POLEN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the non-final order of the trial court, enforcing a judgment by directing appellants to disassemble and remove a “pole bam hangar” they had constructed on their property in derogation of restrictive covenants applicable to appellants’ property. The restrictive covenant provided in pertinent part, “There shall not exist on any lot at any time more than one residence and one hangar....” The trial court correctly found that appellants’ proposed structure, which consisted of an already existing hangar connected to the new “pole bam hangar” by a breezeway, did not comply with the one hangar provision, and that appellee was correct in seeking to enjoin the construction of such a structure.

We wish to point out, however, that nothing in the trial court’s judgment or this opinion precludes appellants from starting over with a new plan, upon submission to and approval by the board of directors, whereby they might modify the existing hangar in conformity with the one hangar rule.

DOWNEY, POLEN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 So. 2d 103, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1616, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3788, 1989 WL 73812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scherer-v-antiquers-aerodrome-inc-fladistctapp-1989.